Elien Neimeijer

60 questionnaires and measures of aggressive incidents (Robinson et al., 2018). Unexpectedly, we did not find an association between support, growth, and phys- ical aggressive incidents. It is therefore concluded that physical aggressive incidents are mainly related to atmosphere and repression. The association between repression and aggressive incidents in general (including physical aggressive incidents) is in line with the deprivation model which states that aggression is not so much caused by client characteristics but by environmental factors such as sociotherapists’ behaviour (Bos- ma, Van Ginneken, Sentse, & Palmen, 2019; Harer & Steffensmeier, 1996). However, the cause-effect relationship is still unclear, the association between aggression and repres- sion stresses the importance of awareness on processes in which these factors interact. An explanation for the link between atmosphere and physical aggressive incidents might be the way atmosphere is measured with the GCI. This construct has a multifaceted character and measures among other things perceptions of safety and cohesion between clients. These facets are consistent with outcomes of the systematic review by Robinson et al. (2018) in which they stated that client’s perceptions of safety, the level of cohesion between clients and the atmosphere of the environment are important elements of group climate which are associated with institutional aggression. However, the cause-effect relationship is still unclear, the association between aggression and repression stresses the importance of awareness on processes in which these factors interact Second, we found that a higher number of different types of aggressive incidents were associated with more frequent use of different types of coercive measures. This is in line with findings of studies by Van der Helm and Stams (2012) and De Valk et al. (2016) in which they noted that transactional processes in (forensic) residential settings can transform into coercive cycles when aggressive behaviour of clients induces coercive re- sponses by sociotherapists, which in turn, causes aggressive behaviour by clients. Third, only a small positive association between repression and coercive measures was found. This may be explained by the earlier described fact that forensic residential settings are characterised by a certain amount of coercion to set boundaries as requirement for a structured and safe environment. De Valk et al. (2016) stated that sociotherapists’ acting becomes repressive when the use of coercive measures is harmful, unlawful or arbitrary.